ok so here is a question for everyone. im playing an oath of vengence paladin. im play in the pathfinder world and i am fighting gobblins. one of the goblins drops his sword and surrenders to me.

here is my issue. im in a part of the world that treats gobblins as a kill on sight nuisance. by the laws of the area im fully justified in killing it anyway, but ignoring a plea for mercy, especially against an unarmed sentient being, would be an evil act.

so what the hell do i do with him?

tie him up and leave him for dead?

carry him around like a child on a leash until i make it back to town to have the city guard run over and slaughter him, and do i sit back and watch as he pleads for help from me?

do i give him a slap on the wrist, and say bad gobblin dont do it again and let him go?

or do i take the point against my alignment, potentially, to give some speech and execute him?

im up against the wall on this one. so many factors to concider, and i may lose my paladin levels if i choose wrong.

Execution, or rather a merciful death, is not an evil act in my eyes, but ask your DM.

thats the problem, he did this to test my ability to RP a paladin. his mentality is " ive never had a paladin make it in my games" so i know he did this to test me. i chose to give him the death of what a evil race would deserve (role playing) he smiled, wrote something down and said "so what do you guys do next".

However if there are a lot of these prisioners dragging you down? Make a chance for them to rise up... you aren't MAKING them do it - they choose to remain under arrest or to arm themselves and attempt a breakout. It thins the geniune from the opportunistic

Make him a squire and teach him chivalry. Protect his life as your own, but make sure that he does not fail in his duties to you. If necessary, do not return to town. If he fails you, if he does not immediately and forever forsake his evil alignment, kill him.

You're not just 'Good' but 'Lawful' as well. The creature has no doubt performed any number of despicable acts and a execution is a perfctly acceptable act by one sword to uphold justice, especially in a world where the black and white of good and evil actually exist.

the truth is, you commit an evil act when you commit an act that you believe is evil. If you think the execution of an evil marauding creature who has suddenly realized that he was outmatched is justifiable then it is. There is an argument to be made for redemption though - giving the creature a chance to redeem himself by serving as a guide or informant could be an option.

It depends mostly on the DM. Players of paladins have to be especially aware of the DM's personality and even personal views. Does your DM allow force you to act with 20th century morality and opinions in an essentially modern campaign setting? Is your DM the power tripping kind who enjoys screwing paladins over? Does he/she have particularly strongly held personal beliefs that bleed over into the game?

None of these things are great behavior from a DM, and they all have a bearing on how happy the players of paladins are.

For example, I believe that if your paladin is from a place where goblins are really a "kill on sight nuisance" and seen merely as a pest, then why would they count to the paladin as a sentient being who's surrender he is honor bound to take. That category would extend to all civilized races or course, and possibly to some monstrous races such as Orcs, Hobgoblins or even Gnolls, but not to the goblins that are seen as vermin or pests. Lets have paladins following different, but equally lawful cultural mores, and not just force an anachronistic 21st century behavior on them.

The reason I suggested turning into a squire is becuase it might make a good story. But, what will make a good story is something you and your GM are going to decide. If your GM isn't going to give you any guidance and expects you to be a mind reader regarding his personal morality, then he's a dick.

I'd guess the GM is just trying to get you to squirm a bit and to get you to question your actions. The "making a note" trick is to increase your paranoia.

There are going to be situations where there is no right answer. Just do what your character deems appropriate and live with your decision. Be able to reasonably justify your actions.

Your character could seek council from similar paladins, when given the opportunity. Or, when you are in town, ask the local militia what would happen to a goblin prisoner. Ask another player character who is LG, what they think is right. Pray to your god for guidance.

If you feel you need to atone, try doing it in a role playing way, rather than just burning a scroll. Instead of buying the Atonement scroll, make a similar donation to an orphanage, for example, and say that that is for your atonement.

Whether or not that is really an evil act depends on the assumptions ingame. When DnD was fashioned races like orcs and goblins acted as the antagonist race which were irredeemably evil. It was just a part of their race. As time progressed the player base started to allow a less black and white view of morality, even regarding those races...

The question is: in your game, is the race fundamentally evil or is it also capable of goodness? If the answer is the former, you are fully justified in killing him. You might not grant this creature his mercy, but you have to think about the multitudes of innocents he would murder otherwise.

I bet, however, the GM didn't think this through and is now presenting you with this dilemma (perhaps just to tease the paladin player) without having thought about the fundamental issues behind it. The outcome depends on the assumptions of the world.

As an extension of my second paragraph; alternatively, it depends on what your deity tells you and what you know. You could try to ask your deity for advice, or ask everyone you are with what they know about this race. Finally, it is not per se an evil act to kill this goblin when its fundamental characteristics are unsure, but everyone you know has heard only of goblins being murderous cretins. Would a real paladin risk the lives of innocents to let this creature live?

... he smiled, wrote something down and said "so what do you guys do next".

now my paranoid ass is thiking ...

Not to give away trade secrets or anything, but there is a not-insignificant chance that your DM is simply screwing with you.

Of course, the minute you believe that and let your guard down, he'll actually take away your paladin levels, so I guess you're still up the proverbial creek.

he does the same thing to monks and barbarians. if you do something that goes against your alignment he will eventually make you change it. pathfinder isnt so bad unless you're playing a paladin, back in 3.5 it was horrible. admittedly this is the first time ive seen it since we've changed to pathfinder.

Make him a squire and teach him chivalry. Protect his life as your own, but make sure that he does not fail in his duties to you. If necessary, do not return to town. If he fails you, if he does not immediately and forever forsake his evil alignment, kill him.

I like this. This is what I would do if I was playing the paladin (or if I was GMing I'd probably have the goblin beg to serve the powerful warrior, if it fit in with how the goblin/story was written.)

This is, why playing a Paladin can suck - it is often a question of DM style and, in my opinion, best avoided by them. Well, in itself the question is really simple as PF provides us with a clear Alignment code: Goblins=evil so there is no question that killing one could be wrong even by a Paladin's higher standards. He would not listen to the pleas of a demon, would he?

If at all possible I suggest that he capture the creature and let it be justied by a proper court, but that's more for performance reasons as the verdict is totally clear and therefore the responsibility for a certain death (sentence) lies by the Paladin.

I myself loathe the idea of a whole sentient race being "evil" as racist, so I prefer a more realsitic view: even if goblins, orcs etc. pp for example are mostly "evil" (no more than huns but i digress) a Paladin should have proof of their evildoings before bringing them to justice. This can only be ok if law institutions would not hang a goblin for being one of course.

So in this example, on the assumption of laws who would only punish for crimes (and not for race, color, religious beliefs...), the Paladin should capture the goblin and let justice have its way. For practical reasons - we are talking medieval here - he could even set him free if there are no evidences for this goblin to have done evil acts - and defending his comrades could hardly be count as such.

In any case, the DM has to make clear how certain actions are viewed in his world, so the player can make a thorogh decision (and has not to guess what his DM might want). This is extremely neccessary for moral questions in a fantasy/medieval world with players and a modern view on things.

In no way is the personal view of the Paladin a measure for "right" and "wrong" as this is totally for his god(dess) / DM to decide. It is of course easy to force a Paladin to commit evil acts so unless player and master are agreeing on such dilemmas I would rather not implement them.

Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, execpt to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Shelyn wrote:

I accept surrender if my opponents can be redeemed - and I never assume they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty's answer to them.

So in case 1 you should have killed the goblin as an enemy to your tribe. In case 2 you should go for atonement now.

The issue in regard to paladins is the code. A player has (hopefully) one in mind. A GM tends to have one in mind. It is important that both parties sit together and discuss the code how they understand it.
In my view the code of a paladin is an integral part to play one. The issue only arises when the player doesn't has a code - now he becomes at the mercy of the GM or if the GM follows a different one.

"You are serving my foe, and have been in a group causing extensive damage to the region. I have no choice but to execute you for your past misdeeds. For your compliance I shall make certain your death is fast and I shall ask Iomedea to have mercy on your soul."

As people have said, you should sit down with your DM and discuss your particular deity's code. Otherwise, you (the player) are thinking:

the code means X, Y and Z

and your DM is thinking:

the code means A, B and C.

Given that the alignment system is flawed, the code becomes far more important and it's something that should be established at character creation.

To address your points (as *I* see them):

~to tie him up and leave him = a death sentence and probably the worst thing you can do as a paladin. You've essentially said "Well, I know he'll die but I'm not strong enough/don't have enough conviction to kill him myself"

Consequence: Not good. Oh, and, erm, expect a visit from one of Iomedae's 'people'. :)

~to hand him in = same as above. His death would likely be quicker but you've no idea how he'll be treated before his death.

Consequence: Maybe as above. Or maybe just some disturbing dreams and a loss of power for a few days.

~slap on wrist = this is the tricky one, given Iomedae's views on evil.

Consequence: Given the ambiguity, probably just some sleepless nights.

~execute him = of those you've listed, probably your best option.

Consequence: As it stands, no consequence. This is taking into account Iomedae's doctrine.

Incidentally, my opinion of the alignments is that "good" has a greater priority than "law" and that to kill someone/thing is evil and to kill someone/thing because the law allows is still just as evil. That's my stance and that is what I would say to my players.

Remember at her heart Iomedea is a god of glory and battle; of bringing good. Pallies of Saernrae may let things go for mercy; at their best, Iomedean pallies would trial the goblin, THEN execute. In fact, if you release a goblin on the world to do more evil, that would be more against the tennents of Iomedea than killing them, especially as you are embracing Vengence.

If the GM considers it evil, you should get un-Paladined for an intentional evil act on the spot. (unless that's been changed in PF, not sure)

So I think he's messing with you.

IMO, subject to the deity's views of course, it would be common for Paladins to be invested with the right to mete justice. Goblin has surrendered to a lawful authority. Paladin is within his rights, in such a case, to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Since the Paladin has personal knowledge that the goblin participated in a conspiracy to kill a Paladin (which would be a capital crime anywhere that a Paladin had the right to mete justice), then the goblin gets a chance to offer mitigating circumstances, which he's too dumb to do well, then the Paladin finds him guilty and dispatches him immediately.

The issue with outright making him a squire (and not just a tethered prisoner) is if it truly is evil it's likely it will slit your throat while you sleep and run off into the night. So tread carefully in that regard. BTW, I like this solution you just have to be careful with it.

... thats the problem, he did this to test my ability to RP a paladin. his mentality is " ive never had a paladin make it in my games" so i know he did this to test me...

I don't really know either of you so can't tell for sure. But I wouldn't play with a GM who's going to be a complete ash hat and try to make me fail. (The GM having fun only at the expense of one of the players is not the point of a game.) If he is only like that on this one topic, then I might keep playing with him, but probably only neutral characters.

Being a paladin means you are doing good and dispensing justice. You don't have to overthink every move; do what you feel is right. I don't think there is any action you can do that is listed on the page that should even make you lose a moment's sleep.

It's really hard to talk about a paladin and potentially evil acts without debating what is evil, and what is good. It's been a subject of debate for as long as humanities been able to ask the question. We are not going to get a definitive answer on these forums. There are always a few people who make statements I vehemently oppose in these discussions.

Typicaly, no one really thinks they are evil. In their own minds they could be totally justified. So a while a player/character could believe they are doing good if the DM feels their actions don't muster they the pally is hosed. I recommend creating a saintly code you follow. Create it with the help of your DM take into account your god and then as long as you follow the code you are fine.

And for the record, my current character a cleric os Sarenrae, would have granted mercy and offered the goblin a chance to redeem himself.

There is a game mechanic to guide how the paladin should act in this situation. It is called Sense Motive. You roll it and if you fail it, you need to determine whether he was sincere or not yourself.

However if you succeed and beat the goblin's bluff or diplomacy you would know whether the goblin was sincere.

I can't believe so many people are tangentially moving into the philosophical discussions of good and evil. When this can be easily resolved with a roll.

If the paladin in question dumped int and wis and didn't buy up sense motive, they need to take a chance. If they have a decent sense motive check there is a mechanical way to guide your decision, no need to complain that the GM is out to screw with you or not.

I'm starting the Kingmaker Path and I'll be out in the wilderness with no town guard to turn bad guys over to. What should I do with them then?
Charter says Bandits are to be slain with sword or hung but that seems too black and white.

My plan is offer repentance to all, spare the ones that actually repent (sense motive and detect evil) and justice for those that don't based on the charter.

Bandit is the same, IMO. Reliance on sense motive is problematic, IMO...you don't know if you succeeded or failed. Whether or not you roll a SM, you still have a binary possibility set...the surrender is "real" or it isn't.

Even if it is a legitimate surrender and the motive is to no longer do evil, so what? Lots of people are truly sorry after they get caught. That doesn't mean they shouldn't suffer appropriate consequences. And lots of people honestly say they mean to amend their ways don't.

I don't see how a roll resolves whether conduct is good or evil at all, nor even how it COULD. The conduct is the conduct.

I think RD has the best answer of the thread... get a phylactery of faithfulness. You will be clued in to your DMs twists and turns before they ever happen.... every single time. Yes it is a drain on funds, but isn't it worth keeping your powers?

Same. If we're invading a lair, and they attacked us, they have forefit their life. Surrender entitles them to a faster death and a prayer to Iomedea to spare their soul. Such is the way of Vengence Paladins; if they truly repent Iomedea will hear their voice and grant them a better hereafter.

Note that the detect evil is unnecessary; the same would happen with neutral people who violated the laws to the level that they are labeled a bandit.

Same. If we're invading a lair, and they attacked us, they have forefit their life. Surrender entitles them to a faster death and a prayer to Iomedea to spare their soul. Such is the way of Vengence Paladins; if they truly repent Iomedea will hear their voice and grant them a better hereafter.

Note that the detect evil is unnecessary; the same would happen with neutral people who violated the laws to the level that they are labeled a bandit.

How is invading someone's lair and they defend their home against intruders an automatic forfeit of life?

Damn this is like if I go into your home for whatever reason, you attack me and I shoot you it is a good act?

... If we're invading a lair, and they attacked us, they have forefit their life...

It could more easily be reasoned that YOU attacked them. They are just defending their homes.

How do you know that every single one of them has committed acts worthy of execution. Sheezmo could be a goblin nerd that everyone picks on so he always gets left behind on the raids. Sure he is an unpleasant and not nice individual, but he has never had the opportunity to committ murder, theft, arson, etc...

If being a not nice person qualifies someone for instant execution without any kind of proof or trial, I have several prior bosses I'd like to introduce you to...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is very difficult to fit most adventuring missions/campaigns into what counts as 'good' in a western/judeao/christian morality framework. I believe is unfair/notfun to individually penalize the paladin for the same activities that are just fine for any of the other character types.

Accept the surrender, then grant the creature an immediate trial. Based on the outcome of this trial, he is either a criminal to be executed or a prisoner of war.

This. By surrendering to you, the goblin also submits yourself to your judgement.

The trial can be very quick - you can use your Detect Evil to verify creature's alignment afterwards, and Sense Motive to find out if it is going to respect your verdict.
If it is evil, untrustworthy, put it to the sword. If the creature can be redeemed, you should give it a reasonable chance... just remember that you're not that one of these silly guys in spandex who let villains commit crimes time and time again.

Finally, if you lack resources to take the creature into custody, use your charisma to promise terrible retribution and let it go. Let the GM worry about it later.

It is very difficult to fit most adventuring missions/campaigns into what counts as 'good' in a western/judeao/christian morality framework. I believe is unfair/notfun to individually penalize the paladin for the same activities that are just fine for any of the other character types.

Paladins are held to a higher standard than other classes. If someone surrenders you may judge them to be irredeemable and then execute them. I would have issue if the paladin doesn't even listen to the person surrendering and just swings away.

Other classes (probably not even other good characters) can get away with it but I do expect more from the paladin.

Also to the poster who said sense motive is not fool proof. So what err on the side of caution or max it out.

I am playing a paladin right now and you better believe that sense motive is a max out skill for me.

If they are not lying sense motive is almost always auto success. Because your bluff check is 0. You just have to say I use the skill.

... Paladins are held to a higher standard than other classes. If someone surrenders you may judge them to be irredeemable and then execute them. I would have issue if the paladin doesn't even listen to the person surrendering and just swings away.

Other classes (probably not even other good characters) can get away with it but I do expect more from the paladin...

Held to a higher standard I can understand. But most other characters are not held to ANY standard. If killing the dude that surrenders is wrong for the paladin, it should also be wrong for the LG cleric of the same god even if he is more likely to get away with it.

Ok, a bit more particular for the paladin. He gets a stern divine warning the first time and second time losses his powers.

For the cleric... {crickets chirps} I almost never hear anyone bring it up at all for any other character. No matter what alignment or class it is almost always a complete non-issue. Not expecting a bit less than a paladin, not a lower standard than a paladin, it is nothing at all.

Suppose the goblin had been a human. Would you have killed him? Goblins are not irrevocably evil; when he asked for mercy it should have been granted. Turning him over to the local authorities is more than sufficient.

Remember this scene from Firefly (the episode is Shindig)?

Spoiler:

After deliberately annoying Wing, Mal escorts Inara onto the dance floor. Mal expresses concern about Atherton's insincerity, to which Inara responds with the possibility of her staying on Persephone with him. When Atherton cuts in and insists on his right to take Inara away because "money changed hands", Mal punches him in the face. But he is astonished to find out that his action was an implicit challenge in this social circle, and that he is now committed to a duel by sword. The trouble is, Mal is no swordsman, and his opponent is an expert. Even as he faces this disaster, he uses Sir Warrick's amused respect to try to swing the cargo job. Sir Warrick does agree to be his second.

Mal passes away the hours in a locked room by ineptly practicing with a sword. Inara manages to sneak into his room to talk. She is confused by Mal's decision to punch Atherton because he insulted her, when Mal often does this himself. Mal replies that he merely insults her profession, whereas Wing insulted her, and has no true respect for her. When she tries to convince him to escape with her assistance, he refuses. He counters by asking her to help him practice, but her efforts seem to meet with little success.

In the misty dawn, a confident Atherton Wing faces an absurdly cocky Mal, while Sir Warrick, Inara, and a crowd of spectators watch. Atherton toys with Mal, and after wounding Mal in the arm, Atherton invites an unsuspecting Mal to attack him, but tricks him with a backhanded thrust, stabbing Mal deeply in the stomach. Mal uneasily but energetically pushes back, only to have his sword broken. Standing over the kneeling captain, Atherton turns at a plea from Inara, who offers to stay with him if he will only spare Mal's life. Mal uses his distraction to disarm the swordsman, deliver a punch to the face, and throw his own broken sword blade at him, stabbing him in the shoulder.

Mal stands over the wounded Wing, wielding Wing's own sword, and Sir Warrick demands that he deliver the final blow, lest Atherton be humiliated. Mal, however, shows mercy — after getting in two more pokes. As Inara helps Mal off the field, Atherton calls out viciously to Inara and threatens to ruin her. Inara responds by informing him that he is now persona non grata in the Companion registry, implicitly ruining him. Entertained by Mal's trouncing of the conceited Wing, and impressed by his tenacity, Sir Warrick agrees to send his cargo with Mal. "Mighty fine shindig!" says Mal to Inara.

Mal is no Paladin. But he doesn't take a life when he doesn't have to. Should a true Paladin do less?